Re: EPSON 4870 PRO versus Microtek i900 (Was Re: modifying scanner)

I cannot recommend Microtek at this
point I have an ongoing problem that has
yet to be resolved and I am currently considering
the possibility of being out 1500.

I am also very unhappy with Calumet and their
treatment of me over this, I've been a customer
for at least 18 years.

On Nov 17, 2004, at 1:56 PM, STUART GOLDSTEIN wrote:

> I know that Dick Sullivan in a post about a month ago
> (time esapes me) sang the praises of the i900 and said
> that it was a better selection than the Epson.
>
> Has anybody worked with the Mircotek besides Dick? The
> Epson has better optical resolution (4800 according to
> the Epson web page).
>
> The list price for both scanners is $600 but both
> Amazon and Buy.com have better prices (around $540).
>
> My budget is tight - might be able to do $600 but not
> sure what to do.
>
> Any comments.
>
> Sign me,
> In Search of a better scanner (aka Stuart)
>
> --- Tom Ferguson <tomf2468@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm doing some checking into this. My current
>> scanner is an older Umax
>> Powerlook III. A shocking $1200US at the time I
>> bought it! Very nice
>> scanner, does everything I need (including large
>> film) and has a good
>> density range. It is SCSI. I'm about to replace the
>> last (old) Mac
>> laptop I have that still runs SCSI :-(
>>
>> I'm trying a SCSI to USB adapter today, but I
>> question if that will
>> work.
>>
>> Anyway..... the best looking "new" option I found
>> was the MicroTek
>> i900. It isn't a "cheap" scanner (about $600US), but
>> it has an optical
>> resolution of 3200 (6400x3200) and "spec" of 4.2 for
>> density (nice).
>> Perhaps most importantly for large film, it has a
>> dual path. Reflective
>> stuff (prints) go above the bed's glass (as is
>> normal). For film (35mm
>> up to 8x10) the lens/CCD adjusts and the film goes
>> INSIDE the scanner.
>> The holder for everything up to (and including) 4x5
>> are glassless. No
>> more newton rings!!!!!!!! The 8x0 holder is a glass
>> holder, but
>> hopefully would be tighter than the "some areas of
>> the film sag enough
>> to make rings on large film" desktop scanning we are
>> all use to :-(
>>
>> I haven't actually used this scanner, I'm just
>> investigating it in case
>> I have to replace my old one. "Potentially" this
>> system could have
>> focus problems?? The scanner comes in two versions
>> "Silver" and "HDR".
>> HDR has the full feature SilverFast software. See
>> here:
>> http://www.microtek.nl/
>>
> Product.php?Product=Detail&P_Id=107&Kword=i900&Select=All&FirstData=0
>>
>> I'm aware of cardbus and PCI adapter cards for SCSI.
>> My desktop
>> computer is "full" (no open PCI slots) and my new
>> laptop is going to be
>> a G4 iBook (no Cardbus), so my one left over SCSI
>> device is going to be
>> a problem :-(
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 17, 2004, at 07:44 AM,
>> Michael Koch-Schulte
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You could use the stitch function in Photoshop or
>> an inexpensive
>>> software like Panorama Factory to piece together
>> the 8X10 neg from
>>> multiple scans. Do it in two or three passes.
>> Three might work better
>>> as there is usually a little bit of light fall off
>> at the edges. I
>>> think the driver on the scanner may prohibit going
>> any wider. I know
>>> the 4870 can do an 8X10.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Dalyvoss@aol.com
>>> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 9:13 AM
>>> Subject: modifying scanner
>>>
>>>  
>>> My Epson Perfection scanner will scan a maximum
>> negative size of 4x5. 
>>> I'd like to be able to scan 8x10s with it.  The
>> cover/light source for
>>> the scanner will only illuminate a small area, so
>> what i'm wondering
>>> is this... has anyone fashioned a larger light
>> source for a scanner
>>> that covers the entire surface of the scanner
>> bed?  Any thoughts?
>>>  
>>> thanks,
>>> susan
>>>  
>>> Susan Daly Voss
>>> lower upstate NY
>>>
>>>
>> --------------
>> Tom Ferguson
>> http://www.ferguson-photo-design.com
>>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
Received on Wed Nov 17 15:39:52 2004